ÉVALUATION IMDb
5,7/10
46 k
MA NOTE
Deux journalistes de tabloà¯ds qui étudient un reportage présentant l'Archange Michel en compagnie d'une vieille femme découvrent que les faits sont avérés. Mais ce n'est pas la seule surpri... Tout lireDeux journalistes de tabloà¯ds qui étudient un reportage présentant l'Archange Michel en compagnie d'une vieille femme découvrent que les faits sont avérés. Mais ce n'est pas la seule surprise qui les attend.Deux journalistes de tabloà¯ds qui étudient un reportage présentant l'Archange Michel en compagnie d'une vieille femme découvrent que les faits sont avérés. Mais ce n'est pas la seule surprise qui les attend.
- Prix
- 1 nomination au total
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesJohn Travolta took 500 hours of Spanish lessons in preparation for this film. When asked why, he said "just in case."
- GaffesWhile Pansy Millbank repeatedly says she is making eggs "over easy," she clearly makes scrambled eggs.
- Bandes originalesWinter Wonderland
Written by Felix Bernard and Richard B. Smith (as Dick Smith)
Published by WB Music Corp. (ASCAP)
Performed by Dion DiMucci (as Dion)
Produced by Dion DiMucci for Salt Productions Inc.
Courtesy of The Right Stuff
Under license from EMI-Capitol Music Special Markets
Commentaire en vedette
Frank Quinlan and Huey Driscoll are reporters for a trashy tabloid paper who are on a bad run of bad stories. When their editor lays down an ultimatum to them, they bring him a potentially great story a real life angel. They are accompanied by a supposed angel expert, Dorothy Winters who has really been sent to keep an eye on the reporters for editor Vartan Malt. When they arrive they find the 'angel' to appear to be genuine but to be a lot less, well, angelic than they expected him to be smoking, drinking and womanising. Michael agrees to go back to Chicago and be in the papers but only if they can travel back by road and make stops along the way. As Michael gets his traveling companions in and out of trouble it begins to seem that he may actually have a bigger aim to achieve than just getting into the papers.
In the UK it is not the 'done thing' to cheer, clap or deride films or trailers in a very public way in the same manner as US audiences will do as the norm (my first time in a US cinema was a surprise when the audience applauded), but it is the reason I will always remember this film. When the trailer was shown in the UK, the audience I was with actually jeered and booed it (myself included) because it just looked so damn lame and stupid. So I skipped it in the cinema (as many did) but then caught it on TV a few years later. Although it is far from a perfect film and its mood and tone are poorly matched it is actually nowhere near as bad as it looked. The story is the usual earthbound angel stuff that Hollywood seems to quite like and it meanders along rather aimlessly, turning into a very vague road movie of sorts. The romance is obvious and uninspiring but generally the film is fun when it manages to have it's tongue in its cheek.
The problem is that it can't decide if it wants to be sappy and romantic or daffy fun. When it tries to be more of a traditional Hollywood romance it doesn't really work that well and indeed is rather laboured. However when it just gets silly and focuses on a really tongue in cheek Michael then it is much more enjoyable as long as you can buy into the sense of humour that it is selling. These two styles don't really come together and they give the film a rather fragmented feel that takes away from the fun (if silly) aspect that stood a good chance of really working if given a little bit more dominance in the film. Sadly the film falls back too much on sentimentality and it sours the mix because it is manufactured, processed, unengaging and quite forced.
For the same reason the performances are mixed. For the most part Travolta is quite funny and just appears to be taking the p*ss and enjoying himself the way he doesn't seem to take it seriously helped me enjoy the film a lot more. He is silly of course but I found this to be enjoyable in light of the more ponderous 'worthy' roles he has played in the years since his Pulp Fiction comeback. Lumbered with the promise of romance, Hurt is not that good but is nicely cynical for the majority of the movie; MacDowell is painfully lame at times and her character is pretty poor, she is a big part of the reason why it is hard to really care about the romance in the story. Both Pastorelli and Hoskins seem to have fun and share a handful of good lines throughout the movie while little roles for other well known faces vary between the effective (Joey Lauren Adams) and the simply pointless (did Richard Schiff really need work this badly?).
Anyway, the film is not great but it is not awful either. It's mix of the sappy and the silly is pretty badly done and I was left wanting a more engaging romance and a lot more of Travolta's mockingly silly performance. All told it is maybe worth a watch once but it is far from being a good film and, if you don't like John Travolta's performance then there isn't a great deal else to watch it for.
In the UK it is not the 'done thing' to cheer, clap or deride films or trailers in a very public way in the same manner as US audiences will do as the norm (my first time in a US cinema was a surprise when the audience applauded), but it is the reason I will always remember this film. When the trailer was shown in the UK, the audience I was with actually jeered and booed it (myself included) because it just looked so damn lame and stupid. So I skipped it in the cinema (as many did) but then caught it on TV a few years later. Although it is far from a perfect film and its mood and tone are poorly matched it is actually nowhere near as bad as it looked. The story is the usual earthbound angel stuff that Hollywood seems to quite like and it meanders along rather aimlessly, turning into a very vague road movie of sorts. The romance is obvious and uninspiring but generally the film is fun when it manages to have it's tongue in its cheek.
The problem is that it can't decide if it wants to be sappy and romantic or daffy fun. When it tries to be more of a traditional Hollywood romance it doesn't really work that well and indeed is rather laboured. However when it just gets silly and focuses on a really tongue in cheek Michael then it is much more enjoyable as long as you can buy into the sense of humour that it is selling. These two styles don't really come together and they give the film a rather fragmented feel that takes away from the fun (if silly) aspect that stood a good chance of really working if given a little bit more dominance in the film. Sadly the film falls back too much on sentimentality and it sours the mix because it is manufactured, processed, unengaging and quite forced.
For the same reason the performances are mixed. For the most part Travolta is quite funny and just appears to be taking the p*ss and enjoying himself the way he doesn't seem to take it seriously helped me enjoy the film a lot more. He is silly of course but I found this to be enjoyable in light of the more ponderous 'worthy' roles he has played in the years since his Pulp Fiction comeback. Lumbered with the promise of romance, Hurt is not that good but is nicely cynical for the majority of the movie; MacDowell is painfully lame at times and her character is pretty poor, she is a big part of the reason why it is hard to really care about the romance in the story. Both Pastorelli and Hoskins seem to have fun and share a handful of good lines throughout the movie while little roles for other well known faces vary between the effective (Joey Lauren Adams) and the simply pointless (did Richard Schiff really need work this badly?).
Anyway, the film is not great but it is not awful either. It's mix of the sappy and the silly is pretty badly done and I was left wanting a more engaging romance and a lot more of Travolta's mockingly silly performance. All told it is maybe worth a watch once but it is far from being a good film and, if you don't like John Travolta's performance then there isn't a great deal else to watch it for.
- bob the moo
- 20 juin 2004
- Lien permanent
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Michael?Propulsé par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Michael: L'archange
- Lieux de tournage
- Gruene Hall - 1281 Gruene Road, New Braunfels, Texas, États-Unis(sequence at the bar named "Joe's")
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Brut – États-Unis et Canada
- 95 318 203 $ US
- Fin de semaine d'ouverture – États-Unis et Canada
- 17 435 711 $ US
- 29 déc. 1996
- Brut – à l'échelle mondiale
- 119 718 203 $ US
- Durée1 heure 45 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant